If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hybrid View

A theory on chronicly injured players

A lot of people label players as injury prone, but that seems like a rather empty statement to me. Some people even go so far to say that injuries are just part of the game, well that is true...but only to a degree.

This is an honest question....how many major injuries did the Pacers sustain during the Larry Brown era. I am curious.

But here is a thought. When watching Jamaal Tinsley play basketball, he seems very out of control with his body. I mean everytime he drives for a lay-up it seems like there is a good chance he will land wrong and hurt himself.

One time I saw him land on his ankle and he obviously sprained it, but then he did some crazy contorted roll that seemed to probably injure the already sprained ankle more.

Watch the Detroit Pistons play and tell me how many times they do something overly flashy. These guys have a certain awareness about their bodies and I honestly think the only way one of their guys gets injured is if someone tries to take them out. These guys are too smart to get injured. No way will one of the Pistons not land right after a dunk/rebound. They are aware of their bodies.

I mean Tinsley seems quite content with being injured and his style of play generally leads to injuries. The guy just doesn't know how to use his body or land properly. It's a certain awareness. I don't think it has a damn thing to do with conditioning.

I think Jermaine to a degree, lacks awareness about his body and this is why he often has minor injuries through the season. I enjoy Jermaine's passion this year, i think his passion is unrivaled. Sure, i made the JO is the worst Pacer ever (out of anger, obviously)...but he wasn't playing well and his attitude was horrible for a while this year. And obviously in my book do be a worst pacer ever, you have to be a lot more than just a role player. But anyways, i dont want to derail the message im trying to convey here.

There is nothing outrageously special about the conditioning of the Wallace Brothers and hell.... all of Detroit. I think somewhere along the line, they learned to play smart basketball, this means being aware of your body.

I'd almost consider them a lock to win the finals this year, because none of their guys will get injured....and every other team probably will be dealing with banged up/injured players in the playoffs.

Tinsley is not going to learn, he is a street baller. He gets satisfaction out of circus passes, circus dribbling, circus drives, circus layups. He seems least concerned with winning of all the Pacers, but of course he could just be a reserved/unexpressive person....i'm willing to accept that.

My point is, players who are injured a lot have no one to blame but themselves. If I was a coach I would yank players for putting their bodies at risk.

I don't watch the Pistons a lot so maybe Kstat can elaborate here, the few times I have seen them play....I RARELY see their players even get close to a situation where they might get injured.

I think this type of mentality is vastly underrated in the NBA. Seems like under Carlisle we've been dealing with all sorts of injuries, but I don't remember many injuries back in the "old days" of course I wasn't very old back in the old days, thats why I asked the question about how many injuries we had under Larry Brown.

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

I think it has more to do with the pistons (A) not plying out of position banging against much stronger players, and (B) being a finesse team. They dont absorb as much contact as most other teams, because they all pass and shoot the ball so well. They expend much less effort than most teams per game.

If you watch the Pistons play, they absorb less contact than any team in the NBA, bar none. Aside from turning an ankle (which Ben does quite a bit), they dont get involved in many collisions.

I would disagree that there are two pistons that are outragously conditioned, Rip and Ben. Ben's a 6'8" center but he's chisled out of solid granite. He's not going to wear down physically, because he's in such awesome shape.

Rip's the biggest health-nut in the NBA. He's got his own personal chef making him nothing but diet and energy food every night. He's insanely durable, even by NBA standards. He never drinks beer, eats cheeseburgers, or parties late after games.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

I think it has more to do with the pistons (A) not plying out of position banging against much stronger players, and (B) being a finesse team. They dont absorb as much contact as most other teams, because they all pass and shoot the ball so well. They expend much less effort than most teams per game.

If you watch the Pistons play, they absorb less contact than any team in the NBA, bar none. Aside from turning an ankle (which Ben does quite a bit), they dont get involved in many collisions.

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

Damn Rip really is a Reggie Miller clone, I didn't know that about him...but it certainly makes sense.

I remember Rip was featured in Men's health magazine, and he referred to his body as a sportscar. "You only get the most out of it if you give it premium fuel." He realizes his cardiovascular shape is the one physical advantage he has over every other guard, so he trains his body every day to keep it.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

I remember Rip was featured in Men's health magazine, and he referred to his body as a sportscar. "You only get the most out of it if you give it premium fuel." He realizes his cardiovascular shape is the one physical advantage he has over every other guard, so he trains his body every day to keep it.

That only works if you are lucky enough to have the structure to support intense, repetitive, over the top workouts.
There are others that WOULD work as hard, but can't because their body betrays the efforts by breaking down from overwork.(structure, bones, ligaments, etc)

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

My last point is this:

The Pistons going back to larry brown have been a passing-oriented offense. There is no isolation of one player going 1-on-1 and initiating contact. It's much more free-flowing, and typically ends up with a player taking an shot that doesnt involve getting hammered.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

The Pistons going back to larry brown have been a passing-oriented offense. There is no isolation of one player going 1-on-1 and initiating contact. It's much more free-flowing, and typically ends up with a player taking an shot that doesnt involve getting hammered.

Thats not true. I'd say 1/4 of Chuancey's points come off going 1-on-1 and driving to create contact (more when the team is struggling to score). Also, Rasheed is often isolated "when he has his mind right" on the low block to take his man 1-on-1 though its not "slashing to draw contact".

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

I imagine playing small ball would cause excess wear on the body. Particularly 3's and 4's playing at 4 and 5, like Granger or JO. Granger seems like a pretty solid/chissled guy himself (wirey-strong), so he may (or not) be able to take it, but JO is someone who's body just can't seem to take that for a full season. There's no shame in it, it's simply how it is.

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

I dont think its style of play. Maybe some but by no means all of it.

I dont know what the deal is with Jamaal. I dont see this out of controll thing that you seem to see. When he came into the league he was not in good condition and that can certainly lead to injuries. But he has improved his conditioning a lot over the last couple of years. Maybe he should go back to cheesburgers and beer.

Looks like more players missed due to injury under Larry Brown than any of the other coaches in the last ten years. If player age , suspensions , benchings(Tinsley/Anderson)and Bender are taken into consideration it looks like a wash really. Although last year , even if you take suspensions into conderation alot of games missed to injury.

Looks like more players missed due to injury under Larry Brown than any of the other coaches in the last ten years. If player age , suspensions , benchings(Tinsley/Anderson)and Bender are taken into consideration it looks like a wash really. Although last year , even if you take suspensions into conderation alot of games missed to injury.

The problem with this is that those guys weren't always actually injured, but were just on the injured list. Until this year, you basically had 3 guys that had to be called "injured" whether they were or not. 3 guys per game, 82 games, so at least 246 "games missed because of injury" per year.

Granted, a lot (if not most) of the injuries you're listing were real. But there's no real way to tell unless you're talking about starters missing games. For example, Rik Smits missing all those games was due to legit injury at least 90 percent of the time. On the other hand, I'm not so sure if Haywoode Workman was really hurt for all 78 games he missed in 96-97, or if Derrick McKey was really injured for over the half the games he was available for in his last 4 seasons in the league.

So, no offense, but those stats are pretty much moot. On any given night, SOMEBODY had to be "injured," whether they actually were or not.

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

Granted, a lot (if not most) of the injuries you're listing were real. But there's no real way to tell unless you're talking about starters missing games. For example, Rik Smits missing all those games was due to legit injury at least 90 percent of the time. On the other hand, I'm not so sure if Haywoode Workman was really hurt for all 78 games he missed in 96-97, or if Derrick McKey was really injured for over the half the games he was available for in his last 4 seasons in the league.

Why would the Pacers place their starting center on the injured reserve, if he wasn't actually injured. It doesn't make sense to do that.

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

Good point, I forgot about the ACL injury.

But if you re-read my post, I said that obviously the STARTERS and/or "major" players were probably hurt for most (if not all) games they were out.

But that list has guys like Erick Strickland, Ron Mercer, Fred Hoiberg, Jamaal Tinsley in 03-04 (when he was benched for practically a quarter of the season), Eddie Johnson etc. on them. Some of those guys were starters during certain periods, but these generally were not "crucial" guys and my gut tells me that a lot of those games were more like extended DNP-CDs than legitimate injuries.

I also don't remember McKey being THAT injured for 4 straight years (yes he was hurt sometimes, but he also played a lot of "specialist" minutes, a la Scot Pollard).

My whole point is that you can't just pull up the "games injured" from years past and expect those stats to be very accurate.

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

But if you re-read my post, I said that obviously the STARTERS and/or "major" players were probably hurt for most (if not all) games they were out.

But that list has guys like Erick Strickland, Ron Mercer, Fred Hoiberg, Jamaal Tinsley in 03-04 (when he was benched for practically a quarter of the season), Eddie Johnson etc. on them. These were not usually "crucial" guys and my gut tells me that a lot of those games were more like extended DNP-CDs than legitimate injuries.

I also don't remember McKey being THAT injured for 4 straight years (yes he was hurt sometimes, but he also played a lot of "specialist" minutes, a la Scot Pollard).

My whole point is that you can't just pull up the "games injured" from years past and expect those stats to be very accurate.

Actually you said 90% of the time, but I'll even forget the details.

A team wouldn't place a major player on the IR even for one game, unless it had something to do with behavioral issues and I don't even see why they'd use the IR for that anyways.

Why can't you use that stat to measure it? In 10yrs are you going think Bender really wasn't injured all this time, and just write it up to other situations?

Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

Looking at most injury prone players it would be the slasher or the
big man with bad feet that would get hurt alot. The Pistons don't
typically slash unless its the oversized billups but Rip is always
running off the screen.

Tinsley gets hurt because he can not play
smart long enough. The show-man-ship gets him blasted more than
anything. There is also a very good chance you are going to get
hurt the more you jump for the rebound and land on someones foot.
I haven't seen many of Bens twisted ankles but i bet its because
he has to jump a foot higher than everyone else.